Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI)

Vote

What was the vote on Resolution 2758? Which members voted for/voted against/abstained? 24.54.208.177 20:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know this, but unfortunately I cannot find the answer yet.--Jusjih 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I second this request. It would be very useful to know which supported, voted against and possible abstentions. Neil the Cellist 02:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the voting record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.154.142 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Detailed Voting:  Country A ARGENTINA A BAHRAIN A BARBADOS A COLOMBIA A CYPRUS A FIJI A GREECE A INDONESIA A JAMAICA A JORDAN A LEBANON A LUXEMBOURG A MAURITIUS A PANAMA A QATAR A SPAIN A THAILAND A Count 17 N AUSTRALIA N BOLIVIA N BRAZIL N CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC N CHAD N CONGO (LEOPOLDVILLE) N COSTA RICA N DAHOMEY N DOMINICAN REPUBLIC N EL SALVADOR N GABON N GAMBIA N GUATEMALA N HAITI N HONDURAS N IVORY COAST N JAPAN N KHMER REPUBLIC N LESOTHO N LIBERIA N MADAGASCAR N MALAWI N MALTA N NEW ZEALAND N NICARAGUA N NIGER N PARAGUAY N PHILIPPINES N SAUDI ARABIA N SOUTH AFRICA N SWAZILAND N UNITED STATES N UPPER VOLTA N URUGUAY N VENEZUELA N Count 35 Y AFGHANISTAN Y ALBANIA Y ALGERIA Y AUSTRIA Y BELGIUM Y BHUTAN Y BOTSWANA Y BULGARIA Y BURMA Y BURUNDI Y BYELORUSSIAN SSR Y CAMEROON Y CANADA Y CEYLON Y CHILE Y CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) Y CUBA Y CZECHOSLOVAKIA Y DEMOCRATIC YEMEN Y DENMARK Y ECUADOR Y EGYPT Y EQUATORIAL GUINEA Y ETHIOPIA Y FINLAND Y FRANCE Y GHANA Y GUINEA Y GUYANA Y HUNGARY Y ICELAND Y INDIA Y IRAN Y IRAQ Y IRELAND Y ISRAEL Y ITALY Y KENYA Y KUWAIT Y LAOS Y LIBYAN ARAB REPUBLIC Y MALAYSIA Y MALI Y MAURITANIA Y MEXICO Y MONGOLIA Y MOROCCO Y NEPAL Y NETHERLANDS Y NIGERIA Y NORWAY Y PAKISTAN Y PERU Y POLAND Y PORTUGAL Y ROMANIA Y RWANDA Y SENEGAL Y SIERRA LEONE Y SINGAPORE Y SOMALIA Y SUDAN Y SWEDEN Y SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC Y TOGO Y TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Y TUNISIA Y TURKEY Y UGANDA Y UKRAINIAN SSR Y USSR Y UNITED KINGDOM Y UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA Y YEMEN Y YUGOSLAVIA Y ZAMBIA Y Count 76 MLDIVES OMAN CHINA Grand Count 131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.154.142 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that a proper table detailing the votes, would be best for the article. But would need a proper source. If you need a proper given source, I recommend the archive of University of Southern California. Either google "1971-UN-China-seating.pdf" or download pdf file from url - https://china.usc.edu/sites/default/files/legacy/AppImages/1971-UN-China-seating.pdf

202.52.36.54 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Short resolution?

Is it just me, or is this resolution really short? Yes, I tried confirming this, but the official UN resolutions site is currently down and obviously there's possible bias by looking at TaiwanDocuments.org , or even examining the resolution provided on Wikipedia. (No, I'm not saying that Wikipedia sucks, on the contrary, I love this website) Neil the Cellist 02:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not atypical for these kinds of resolutions to be short. This is because it's not really setting up a program or the like, but merely saying "The PRC represents China, the ROC does not". It's decision on a particular question, rather than the addressing of a problem, so all that's needed is the decision and a bit of justification, and you've got a resolution. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the resolution is anything but a short affair, it took many days of discussion to come up with the language. we need more information on what was actually debated. 58.182.210.94 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

According to the "Controversy" section, ROC government claims that the expulsion was illegally, because the Resolution 2758 has violated Article 6 of UN Charter.

However, a case can be made that ROC was recognized as the sole legitimate Chinese government, replacing imperial Ching government in 1912,

There was and is a state named China both before and after 1912: because the number of states didn't increase; and that ROC inherited all rights and obligations of Ching government.

In 1949, CCP overthrew KMT's ROC government and established PRC government. PRC asked other states to recognize that "there is only one China" and that " PRC government was the sole legitimate government of China".

In 1971, Resolution 2758 was adopted by UN General Assembly, expelling ROC government and transferring UN China seat to PRC government and recognizing PRC as the sole legitimate government of China.

This clearly indicates that PRC was succeeded ROC in 1949 just in the same manner that ROC succeeded imperial Ching government in 1912.

I suggest that the aforementioned information should be integrated into the main article.

Siyac 10:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly not the case, because the UN did not exist back in 1912, so the ROC never replaced Imperial China as a member of the UN.

--Damifb (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of the world's population and country disagrees that tiny Taiwan of 20 million can represent a nation of 1.4 billion.

It is so clear that Chiang Kai Shek's government is unlawful and violates UN Charter according to the UN Resolution 2758 therefore China's seat was restored to People's Republic of China. Accroding to the UN Resolution 2758 there is only one government that represents China, which is the People's Republic of China, unlike the case of West and East Germany and North/South Korea, UN Resolution 2758 sets the rule to make ROC impossible to re-enter UN.

-"Decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it."

However, Taiwan is still trying to enter UN by asking countries that have diplomatic relation with it to attempt to apply membership in the UN General Assembly each year since 90's. Whether such effort by Taiwan would succeed or not, there are two factors number one is PRC's anti-succession law and number two is Taiwanese seperation from the ROC (ROC is not recognized by the UN).

doubts

the UN resolution in this article called the previous government "unlawful" yet although it is too late now, we must consider that before the civil war the government called roc was a "permanent member" so as permanent they cannot be voted out. they were representatives until the civil war for around four years see quote below. so even if we assume the communist government deserves representation in UN, [which is dubious considering the civil war] as representing china's citizens the communist prc should be like Portugal membership not a security council member. the failure of USA and Britian and France to prevent this injustice seems to be a stain on the UN but too late now all we can do is talk 185.120.124.1 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

+quote "The Republic of China had been a member of the United Nations from the organization’s formation in 1945, at which time it still governed all of China. However, in 1949, the R.O.C. government was expelled from the mainland by the Communist Party, the founders of the People’s Republic of China."

most people didn't realize this but the ROC government in Taiwan is not actually the legitimate ROC government, the ROC government was not lead by Chiang at the time it was defeated in the mainland(Chiang lost the party election), Chiang illegally stole the treasury to which he was not holding the office at that time and move the gold to Taiwan resulting in the collapse of the legitimate ROC government in the mainland, Chiang then made himself the leader of that ROC. so... one can argue Chiang is actually a traitor of ROC and setup a 4th ROC government in Taiwan. 58.182.210.94 (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Most people do know PRC propaganda when they see it. Chiang fled with what he could of the ROC to a safe haven. Saying this caused the collapse of the ROC on the mainland is an old confuse-the-issue trick. The ROC lost on the mainland because the military situation shifted against them fighting the Communists, and because they undermined their support with an unwise price control policy (which also damaged their economy). This page should be watched to stop fake history being slipped in. 2601:647:5800:7D80:E4E1:B063:6C64:205B (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

There are some references to "military occupation" and weasel words like "simply" in this section that smell very POV. Needs some cleanup -- 190.40.57.18 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be mentioned how PRC's exclusion from the UN prevented nearly 25% of the world's population from being represented by their government because of Western greediest and preference for tiny KMT Taiwan.

Scholars are divided on the line of reasoning above. Some scholars believe that totalitarian regimes don't 'represent' their people, and their governments are not legitimate. PRC government is one of them. In this view, Chinese people lacks representation in the UN to this today; only CCP is represented in the UN. It is only out of practical considerations, not moral grounds, that UN admitted CCP representatives in the UN. The same thing can be said about North Korea. --Happyseeu (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense. You are basically saying Communist party members aren't Chinese. You forget that the party has 80 million people, all working together under a common name. Of course, different views persist, there is even the United Front, factions which have split of the Guomindang. The army serving the country consists of Chinese volunteers, sons and daughters of citizens. How dare you say that the Chinese government is not legitimate? Being able to put a tick on a paper solves all problems, doesn't it? The biggest democracy in the world has so basic everyday life issues compared to China. And don't even talk about morals. Look at your beloved legitimate governments, how do people there really come to power from. --2.245.155.13 (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We do, and they stack up pretty well against the Communist death state. Basic everyday life issues in the PRC are avoiding being murdered by the state. Tho things have eased up a bit since Mao died and (I hope) went to his reward.

But as between the PRC and the West, comparative life expectancy and per capita GNP tell their own story. So does the toll of people killed by state action.

Mussolini used to claim the same thing, the whole nation debated the nations issues inside the Party, then the Party decided as the representatives of the whole nation. We know what really happened, just as we know what really happens in the PRC. Democracy is not so much about solving problems, as it is avoiding them - specially, limiting power to avoid the problems created by the total state.

25% of the world’s population is not even represented by its country’s government - that population is ruled by it, and no back talk, or else.

It is true that this is not relevant to the U.N. That is just an association of governments of various types. It has some liberal window dressing, like a Human Rights Commision (with members like North Korea - gah), but its main purpose is to provide a way for different regimes to talk, and adjust their interests, and stop the big powers choosing up sides for a major war. As happened twice last century. I think this is mentioned in the opening of the UN charter. This seems worth doing. Associations like NATO and the EU can be choosy, the UN can not; it must deal with things as they are. 2601:647:5800:7D80:A88C:490E:86E2:8D70 (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

[Scholars are divided on the line of reasoning above. Some scholars believe that totalitarian regimes don't 'represent' their people, and their governments are not legitimate.] this argument make no sense in the UN context because you will then have to remove every non-democracy in the UN. UN is not a democratic organisation and it was not created to promote liberalism. one has to remember it founding member include China and USSR. both were not democracy. it also into UK which still has a fucking monarch that while it has democracy, the constitution of UK never formally grant power to that democracy, house of lord still exist. so what powerless and officeless scholar thing is pointless. they are not the UN and they do not define the rules to which UN is run. the purpose of the UN was created to be inclusive of all state to avoid a war, more precisely a war between US and USSR, how do you maintain peace if you argument is these 2 countries are not equal? people have to understand politic, this is not an academic debate, this is a structural one. 58.182.210.94 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop POV pushing

User:82.170.31.188 would you please stop POV pushing of what wasn't said in the resolution? --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the process re: formal expulsion and the ROC's de facto expulsion. This process probably needs to be explained in more detail in the article. I typed the latest edit off the top of my head.--Jiang 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, your clarification looks fine. I made some minor modifications though, you can check if it is ok. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

clarification needed

what, in the opinion of the United Nations General Assembly, is the definition of "China"? According to our China article, China is "a cultural region, an ancient civilization, and, depending on perspective, a national or multinational entity extending over a large area in East Asia". Now, last time I checked, UN membership wasn't for ancient civilizations or cultural regions, but for sovereign states. It would seem likely that the General Assembly has a notion of "China" as a "national entity", but how is that defined? Does it include a definition along the lines of territory, or ethnicity? If so, what is it? If they don't clarify what they mean by "China", the resolution is semantically empty, or worse, open to interpretation according to the tastes of each reader. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the parlance of the UN, China = PRC. Thankfully they do not refer to states based on what their respective Wikipedia articles say. L ^talk 06:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Has UN sovereignty over China? if no, how can UN adjudge China belong to whom? To my opinion, this was an anti-international law act with the foreign super power, totally illegal. --SH9002 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, the lack of specific reference was deliberate. If they admit Taiwan to the UN, that implies they reject China's position. On the other hand if they define Chinese territory as including Taiwan, they take China's side. As long as they're both claiming one another's territory it's difficult to step in impartially. Suppose that both China and Taiwan renounced their claims, I bet that the UN would accept Taiwan's application straight away. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

- This resolution was raised by Albania, which ran Maoist political streamline at the time and PRC supported it financially. So unlawful government of Chiang Kai Shek meant Republic of China at the time this resolution passed in UN to legally prevent ROC to be recognized by this international body and the related international court judgment and replaced by PRC and thereafter till now.

In the resolution, I'm quite sure "China" refers to the people of China and the country as a political division, as distinct from other countries. It then goes on to say that the government calling itself the People's Republic of China is the representative of that political entity. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

UN does not define what China is, the resolution is very clear in the language, it states it RECOGNISE prc as the sole government of China and defines taiwan(as well as south china seas at that time because UNCLOS was not written yet and EEZ isn't a thing) as chinese territory. now UN does not have the power to determine what is the territory of China, but it does have to define legally what the organisation accept as "undisputed" chinese territory for administrative reasons. in UN generally every state would submit their own territory map to the UN, overlap will then be concluded as disputed, territory claim by only one country is therefore undisputed. that is all it means. one has to remember that at this time ROC was claiming the whole of China as it territory to the UN, obviously it would feel irrational for UN to conclude ROC is Taiwan, it simply and legally isn't, even to this day, ROC constitution still do not define it territory as Taiwan... since it still occupies part of Fujian on the mainland. 58.182.210.94 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File talk:Voting res 2758.png

The map shows, amongst other things:

• Western Sahara (then a Spanish colony);
• Southwest Africa (now Namibia and then a SA colony);
• British Honduras (now Belize and then a British colony),

all expressing a view (yes, no or abstain) on the UN "China" vote. How can this be accurate? On what basis is it claimed that these territories were regarded as having expressed any vote on the matter? They were I believe all on the UN list for de-colonisation at the time. Moreover, if these territories get counted then how come Greenland does not. In my opinion, none of them should as I don't believe this is accurate. There are likely other discrepancies too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Namibia wasn't an integral part of South Afrika, was it? (some kind of border line would look better) How to treat the British and French territories? Were they represented in the UN by the main country? Bangladesh is a not that easy case, the declaration of independence had been before, but it hadn't been recognized by the date of the assembly, so it should stay coloured. I've added some more lines to parts of NO, DK, ES. --androl (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101128023816/http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml to http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://untreaty.un.org/English/FinalClauses/english.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051120173028/http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16557,filter.all/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16557,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

History yet omitting much

The article may be accurate history but omits so much that would be informative. "17 UN members" - like who? Given the ongoing cold war and other heavy-weight manipulations, it is not an inconsequential point! In fact, it could easily be perceived that someone doesn't want any "prejudicial content" disturbing a desired narrative. Shenme (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Exact mechanism for ROC removal from security council

This is a little unclear. A clarification of this point would be useful, because right now there is talk of removing Russia from the Security Council. If this can not be done without amending the UN charter, it won’t happen, as all five members of the security council must approve. But ROC was removed. How did that happen without amending the charter? There is mention of de-recognition,but it is brief. A discussion of this could really improve the article. And maybe be relevant soon. 2601:647:5800:7D80:A88C:490E:86E2:8D70 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia was suspended from the UN Human Rights Council.[1]

UNSC (Security Council) and UNGA (General Assembly) are different. UNGA votes are non-binding on states. However, if UNGA vote is taken and turned over to the UNSC, and UNSC has same or similar vote, the UNSC vote is binding. The Republic of China had the seat at the U.N.G.A. and SC. but both "Chinas" (due to anomaly of both claiming to be legit) were both saying they were the 'ONLY' china and BOTH claimed they were the only legit China. They asked the world to decide. The world decided on the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate China. CaribDigita (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The USA congress is creating an alternative facts version of this

The Caribbean media reported on the new alternative facts version of this resolution that the United States Congress is trying to apply to this resolution and get Caribbean states to go along with it.

• US lawmakers reject China’s mischaracterization of UN resolution 2758
• Senior US officials push back against the PRC ‘Misusing’ UNGA Resolution 2758

CaribDigita (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's see where it goes. If the end product is another unilateral US act, I don't think the US administration will be able to avoid clearly stating its one-China policy, which could lead to a substantial change in US-China relations. If it goes multilateral, then the US will have to convince the UN General Assembly to change the UN's current one-China policy, which is a diplomatic war the US is unlikely to win. For me, the question is: what do US politicians really want to get out of this? Yoaman (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop misusing the "Primary sources" tag

Some users may have misunderstood the rules of Wikipedia:Evaluating sources and misused them (rev1226263777, rev1226264579). To avoid future abuse or even edit wars, I believe it is necessary to make a note here.

In brief:

• Different types of sources serve different purposes (see WP:PSTS). According to WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, "secondary" does not mean that the source is "good" or "reliable" or "usable".
• Using the excuse of WP:SECONDARY to directly remove descriptive claims based on primary sources, or labeling them as "WP:OR" without properly checking the sources, is an abuse of the rules.

Primary sources can be used: Regarding the official policy of an entity (e.g. UN, US) on China, primary sources are indispensable for understanding the accurate, unaltered position of that entity (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). When integrating primary sources to make descriptive claims about the position, one should use direct quotes, or summarise or paraphrase parts of the primary source while preserving the original meaning (see WP:PRIMARYCARE and WP:PRIMARY).

Resolving content disputes: Please review Wikipedia:Editing policy for proper use of tags and work towards a version that reflects the Wikipedia:Consensus of the editors. Use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes, request help on the Wikipedia:Noticeboards, or initiate a Wikipedia:Dispute if necessary. In some cases, requesting temporary Wikipedia:Protection policy may be appropriate.

The above suggestions rely heavily on tertiary sources.

Finally a bit of personal opinion: I have noticed that some of you think that the position of the UN or the US on the so-called cross-strait relationship is not neutral. They don't have to be neutral, and it's not Wikipedia's job to tell the UN or the US what they've decided. Yoaman (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Below is what appears to be an example of bad practice, suggesting a lack of knowledge in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. I urge colleagues to check their sources carefully and to distinguish between descriptive claims and interpretation.

So someone wrote earlier in the US section:

The US official policy is to recognize the PRC government as the sole legal government of China, but the US does not endorse,[22] only acknowledge,[23] with the PRC's position that Taiwan is a part of China,[24] and has considered Taiwan's political status as "undetermined".[25]

22. "US refutes China's characterization of UN Resolution 2758". Voice of America.

23. "China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.

24. "US Does Not Take a Position on Taiwan's Sovereignty, State Department Says". Voice of America.

25. "U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.

Let's take this point by point:

• "The US official policy is to recognize the PRC government as the sole legal government of China": No reference.
• "the US does not endorse": From here it is no longer the policy of the US administration. However, this is not correctedly stated.

More serious problems are found in Reference 22, which fails to reliably report the exact and unaltered words of the US State Department spokesman:

US refutes China's characterization of UN Resolution 2758 is a "news report" (WP:PRIMARYNEWS) saying that Matthew Miller told VOA "no" when asked if the resolution endorsed China's sovereignty claim over Taiwan.

However, the original recording of the State Department briefing says, "No, it does not, but in – for any further comments, let me take it back. I haven’t seen Mark’s comments. Let me take it back and talk to him about his full comments".

So what did Mark Lambert say? Go to the recorded seminar and you will hear: "Resolution 2758 does not endorse, is not equivalent to, and does not reflect a consensus for the PRC's 'one China' principle."

Now go back to Matthew Miller's media briefing: "I don’t really have any further comment to those two statements [Washington’s “one China” policy and Beijing’s “one China” principle] that we put out. Our “one China” policy has not – has not changed."

• "only acknowledge, with the PRC's position that Taiwan is a part of China": The addition of the word "only" indicates a tone of interpretation, but by whom?

Reference 23 is an analysis by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and seems appropriate here. However, Reference 24 is another VOA report which distorts US State Department Spokeman's words.

• "and has considered Taiwan's political status as 'undetermined'": I failed to find this in the only cited Reference 25. Instead, I found similar expressions in Reference 23, but again these appear to be CRS interpretations.

Yoaman (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)